In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:
Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?
This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.
The OP doesn't mention whether they are a grad student, but given that they say, "I don't have any time constraints on my writing", and describe themselves as an inexperienced scholar, it seems like they are probably a student (or perhaps a postdoc?). Anyway, the reason that I mention this is that in my experience, one trap that grad students and inexperienced scholars run into is reading way too much–so much so that it seriously impacts their writing productivity. Now, of course, it's important to get a good general grasp of the literature in whatever area you're writing in, and one thing that really bugs me as a journal reviewer is when people submit papers who obviously haven't read much of the literature. Still, you don't have to do 'extensive research' and notetaking in order have a general idea what the background literature looks like. All you need to do is a quick literature search (e.g. a keyword search in Philpapers, etc.) and read things that are obviously relevant to your paper topic. Further, as I mentioned here, in doing this you don't need to read everything with a fine-tooth comb: certainly not every primary text and source in the secondary literature! When conducting background research for papers that I write, I always give papers a very quick read first (with some highlights and margin notes) in order to determine which papers I need to read more carefully later given my project. Otherwise, my experience is that if you try to read everything slowly and carefully, taking extensive notes, you'll never get any real writing done or get papers out for review.
Here is why I mention all of this: earlier in my career when I was a grad student and postdoc/VAP, I ran into the grad student trap that I describe above. I had so much free time that I tried to read and take detailed notes on everything…and I never got any papers of my own done. And I've seen this problem afflict many other grad students I knew. First, reading so much, and so slowly and with extensive note-taking, is extremely time-consuming–which is a problem because writing is very time-consuming. Second, taking so many notes can easily result in a kind of cognitive overload and confusion, landing one in the 'weeds', as it were. More is not always better. When I was a grad student, I often found myself with so many notes that I was unable to narrow down exactly what to address or not address in a paper–and I often found myself with so many notes that I had no idea what to write.
Anyway, perhaps surprisingly, one of the things that I have heard many times from more advanced scholars–which in my experience is absolutely right–is 'write first.' Once you have a basic grasp of the background literature (from reading things quickly and without a ton of notes), the best thing to do is to start writing. Then, as you're writing, in my experience it will become very clear which things you need to read super-carefully and take some notes on, and which things you don't. In short, what I do–and the main tip I would give the OP–is to let one's writing dictate what to read super carefully and take detailed notes on. Don't read everything and then try to write. Read a bunch of things fairly quickly without lots of extensive notes, write, then read more carefully and take extensive notes on things that your writing suggests is important to get careful and clear on.
Of course, this is just my experience, and my advice may not be the best or generalize to others. So what do you all think? Here, again, are the OP's two main questions:
- Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read?
- Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?
Leave a Reply